American Journal Of Political Science Research Articles

Playing Fair with Punishment

Previous articleNext article No AccessPlaying Fair with PunishmentRichard DaggerRichard Dagger Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Ethics Volume 103, Number 3Apr., 1993 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/293522 Views: 23Total views on this site Citations: 30Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1993 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Zachary Hoskins Public Reason and the Justification of Punishment, Criminal Justice Ethics 2 (Aug 2022): 1–21.https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2102838Corey Brettschneider A democratic theory of punishment: The Trop principle, University of Toronto Law Journal 70, no.supplement 1supplement 1 (Feb 2020): 141–162.https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.2019-0075Jessica Flanigan, Christopher Freiman Drug War Reparations, Res Philosophica 97, no.22 (Jan 2020): 141–168.https://doi.org/10.11612/resphil.1886Richard L. Lippke Two Ways of Thinking About the Value of Deserved Punishment, The Journal of Ethics 23, no.44 (Jul 2019): 387–406.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-019-09301-6Chad Flanders Political Philosophy and Punishment, (Dec 2019): 521–545.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22811-8_22Jacob Bronsther , Legal Theory 25, no.11 ( 2019): 26.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325219000016Göran Duus-Otterström Fairness-Based Retributivism Reconsidered, Criminal Law and Philosophy 11, no.33 (Sep 2015): 481–498.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-015-9382-1Justin Tosi A FAIR PLAY ACCOUNT OF LEGITIMATE POLITICAL AUTHORITY, Legal Theory 23, no.11 (Jun 2017): 55–67.https://doi.org/10.1017/S135232521700012XHsin-Wen Lee Taking Deterrence Seriously: The Wide-Scope Deterrence Theory of Punishment, Criminal Justice Ethics 36, no.11 (Apr 2017): 2–24.https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2017.1298879Christopher Bennett Penal Disenfranchisement, Criminal Law and Philosophy 10, no.33 (May 2014): 411–425.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9316-3Tony Ward, Clare Leon Excluding evidence (or staying proceedings) to vindicate rights in Irish and English law, Legal Studies 35, no.44 (Jan 2018): 571–589.https://doi.org/10.1111/lest.12081David Gilboa PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE AS A QUASI-TAX, Economics and Philosophy 31, no.33 (Jul 2015): 431–445.https://doi.org/10.1017/S026626711500019XHon-Lam Li Contractualism and Punishment, Criminal Justice Ethics 34, no.22 (Aug 2015): 177–209.https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2015.1067959Patrick Tomlin Retributivists! The Harm Principle Is Not for You!, Ethics 124, no.22 (Jul 2015): 272–298.https://doi.org/10.1086/673437Matt Matravers Penal Justice and Social Injustice, (Nov 2018): 3474–3481.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_609Andrew Moss Responding to retributivists: a restorative justice rejoinder to the big three Desert theories, Contemporary Justice Review 16, no.22 (Jun 2013): 214–227.https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2013.798522Jim Staihar, Stephen Macedo Defending a Role for Mercy in a Criminal Justice System, (Oct 2011): 138–194.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139030656.006Zachary Hoskins Fair Play, Political Obligation, and Punishment, Criminal Law and Philosophy 5, no.11 (Sep 2010): 53–71.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-010-9103-8Arthur Shuster Kant on the Role of the Retributive Outlook in Moral and Political Life, The Review of Politics 73, no.33 (Jul 2011): 425–448.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670511003433Matt K. Stichter Rescuing Fair-Play as a Justification for Punishment, Res Publica 16, no.11 (Mar 2010): 73–81.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-010-9119-xMichael Davis Punishment Theory’s Golden Half Century: A Survey of Developments from (about) 1957 to 2007, The Journal of Ethics 13, no.11 (Sep 2008): 73–100.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-008-9040-0Massimo Renzo, Bjarke Viskum Introduction: Law and Philosophy—Moral, Legal and Political Perspectives, Res Publica 14, no.44 (Nov 2008): 237–239.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-008-9068-9Richard Dagger Punishment as Fair Play, Res Publica 14, no.44 (Nov 2008): 259–275.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-008-9071-1Antony Duff The Incompleteness of ‘Punishment as Fair Play’: A Response to Dagger, Res Publica 14, no.44 (Nov 2008): 277–281.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-008-9072-0Gregory A. Huber, Sanford C. Gordon Accountability and Coercion: Is Justice Blind when It Runs for Office?, American Journal of Political Science 48, no.22 (Mar 2004): 247–263.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00068.xJ. Angelo Corlett The Problem of Punishment, (Jan 2004): 22–39.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0421-2_3Bertrand Guillarme Bibliographie, (May 2003): 175–184.https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.guill.2003.01.0175 Mark Hall , and George Klosko Political Obligation and the United States Supreme Court, The Journal of Politics 60, no.22 (Oct 2015): 462–480.https://doi.org/10.2307/2647918Fred M. Frohock The Boundaries of Public Reason, American Political Science Review 91, no.44 (Aug 2014): 833–844.https://doi.org/10.2307/2952167Jami L. Anderson Reciprocity as a justification for retributivism, Criminal Justice Ethics 16, no.11 (Jan 1997): 13–25.https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.1997.9992024

Group decision making over multidimensional objects of choice

Recent work in social choice theory has suggested very pessimistic results about the way in which majority rule voting procedures (a) reflect (or fail to reflect) the will of the majority and (b) are subject to manipulation. We briefly review this work but focus on more recent results that make use of the concept of the “yolk” ( McKelvey, 1986, American Journal of Political Science, 30(2), 283–315). This recent literature (e.g., Feld, Grofman, & Miller, 1989, Mathematical and Computer Modeling 12(4/5), 405–416) shows that, when groups are voting over a set of objects that can be characterized as points in a multidimensional space under a simple sequential procedure of single elimination, alternatives that are centrally located within the pareto set are almost certain to be chosen. Moreover, the structure of majority rule in the spatial context imposes a natural “fuzzy ordering” on alternatives. We also look at how supramajoritarian decision rules can give rise to cores in spatial voting games.

The Eastern European Revolution and Education in Czechoslovakia

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe Eastern European Revolution and Education in CzechoslovakiaBotho von KoppBotho von Kopp Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Comparative Education Review Volume 36, Number 1Feb., 1992Special Issue on Education in a Changing Europe Sponsored by the Comparative and International Education Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/447084 Views: 7Total views on this site Citations: 10Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1992 The Comparative and International Education SocietyPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Jiří Zounek, Libor Juhaňák, Klára Záleská Education, Life, and Digital Technologies in the Czech Republic: The Story of a Post-Socialist Country in Central Europe, (Feb 2022): 17–43.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90040-3_2Laura B. Perry Democratic Aspects of Communist and Post-communist Schooling in Central and Eastern Europe, (Aug 2012): 155–171.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4728-9_9Richard Pesik, Tatiana Gounko Tertiary education in the Czech Republic: the pathway to change, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 41, no.66 (Dec 2011): 735–750.https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2011.573639N.K. Napier, M. Harvey, K. Usui Management Education in Emerging Economies: The Impossible Dream?, Journal of Management Education 32, no.66 (Jul 2008): 792–819.https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562908319994Allen Hicken, Joel W. Simmons The Personal Vote and the Efficacy of Education Spending, American Journal of Political Science 52, no.11 (Jan 2008): 109–124.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00302.xLaura B. Perry The seeing and the seen: contrasting perspectives of post‐communist Czech schooling, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 35, no.33 (Sep 2005): 265–283.https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920500212548N.K. Napier, N.T.T. Mai National Economics University and Boise State University: International Cooperation in Vietnam, (Jan 2004): 311–326.https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8072-9_20Barbara Heyns Markets for Organizational Reform, (Jan 1995): 57–80.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1094-3_4David N. Plank, William Lowe Boyd Antipolitics, Education, and Institutional Choice: The Flight From Democracy, American Educational Research Journal 31, no.22 (Jun 2016): 263–281.https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031002263Robert F. Lawson The American Project for Educational Reform in Central Europe, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 24, no.33 (Jan 1994): 247–257.https://doi.org/10.1080/0305792940240305

Voting Laws, Educational Policies, and Minority Turnout

Voting Laws, Educational Policies, and Minority Turnout

An Alternative Interpretation of Recent Political Science Journal Evaluations

In their recent article in PS, Giles, Mizell, and Patterson (1989) provide a long-awaited update of an earlier article (Giles and Wright, 1975) on subjective evaluations by political scientists of a wide range of social science journals. In both articles, Giles and his collaborators sent questionnaires to a random sample of political scientists, asking them to rate each of the journals with which they were familiar on a scale from 0 to 10 with 0 = poor, 2 = fair, 4 = adequate, 6 = good, 8 = very good, and 10 = outstanding. Additional data were also collected on whether or not respondents were familiar with each journal. Based on the evaluation data, Giles et al. calculate the mean evaluation for each of the journals represented, as well as a ranking of the journals from most highly to least highly evaluated. The mean ratings and the rankings of these journals that were calculated by Giles et al. are presented in columns (1) and (5) of Table 1, respectively. The rankings have a fair degree of face validity. For the most part, the major comprehensive journals in political science are found to be ranked highly, based on mean evaluations among those claiming to be familiar with the journal; the American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, and Journal of Politics are all ranked in the top six journals, along with World Politics, American Sociological Review, and American Journal of Sociology. Further, several broad-based subfield journals are also ranked highly (e.g., International Organization, Comparative Politics, Political Theory). However, an examination of these ratings yields some intriguing anomalies. What is surprising is that several journals with very narrow audiences and foci are also ranked very highly. For instance, the American Journal of International Law, Soviet Studies, Slavic Review, China Quarterly, Journal of Latin American Studies, and Journal of Political Economy are ranked among the top 22 journals, even though in none of these instances is more than one-quarter of respondents familiar with the journal. These relatively high ratings are obviously due to the high evaluations given these journals by their relatively narrow readerships, and not necessarily because they are highly visible and broadly recognized for the quality of the scholarship contained within their pages.

Pessimism, Psychology, and Politics

Brody, R., & Sigelman, L. (1983). Presidential popularity and presidential elections: An update and an extension. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 325-328. Chance, M. R. A. (1976). The organization of attention in groups. In M. von Cranach (Ed.), Methods of inferencefrom animal to human behavior. The Hague: Mouton. de Waal, F. (1982). Chimpanzee politics. London: Cape. Erikson, R. S. (1989). Economic conditions and the presidential vote. American Political Science Review, 83, 567-573. Hibbs, D. A., Jr. (1987). The American political economy: Macroeconomics and electoral politics in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hinde, R. (1982). Ethology. Glasgow: Collins. Lanzetta, J. T., Sullivan, D. G., Masters, R. D., & McHugo, G. J. (1985). Emotional and cognitive responses to televised images of political leaders. In S. Kraus & R. E. Perloff (Eds.), Mass media and political thought (pp. 85-116). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lewis-Beck, M., & Eulau, H. (Eds.). (1985). Economic conditions and electoral outcomes. New York: Agathon. Marcus, G. (1988). The structure of emotional appraisal: 1984 candidates. American Political Science Review, 82, 737-762. Markus, G. B. (1988). The impact of personal and national economic conditions on the presidential vote: A pooled cross-section analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 137-154. Masters, R. D. (1989a). Gender and political cognition: Integrating evolutionary biology and political science. Politics and the Life Sciences, 8, 3-39. Masters, R. D. (1989b). The nature of politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Masters, R. D. (1989c). Nice guys DON'T finish last: Aggressive and appeasement gestures in media images of politics. In M. R. A. Chance (Ed.), Social fabrics of the mind (pp. 277-96). Hove and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Masters, R. D., & Sullivan, D. (1989). Nonverbal displays and political leadership in France and the United States. Political Behavior, 11, 121-153. Masters, R. D., Sullivan, D. G., Lanzetta, J. T., McHugo, G. J., & Englis, B. G. (1986). The facial displays of leaders: Toward an ethology of human politics. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 9, 319343. McGuire, M. T., & Raleigh, M. (1986). Behavioral and physiological correlates of ostracism. In M. Gruter & R. Masters (Eds.), Ostracism: A social and biological phenomenon (pp. 39-52). New York: Elsevier. Mishkin, M., & Appenzeller, T. (1987). The anatomy of memory. Scientific American, 256, 38-89. Strayer, F. (1981). The organization and coordination of asymmetrical relations among young children: A biological view of social power. In M. Watts (Ed.), Biopolitics: Ethological and physiological approaches (pp. 33-50). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sullivan, D., & Masters, R. D. (1988a, July). Emotional and cognitive reactions to watching political leaders: Experimental evidence in France and the United States. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society for Political Psychology, San Francisco. Sullivan, D., & Masters, R. D. (1988b). Happy warriors: Leaders' facial displays and viewers' emotions, and political support. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 345-368.

Justice and Charity

The distinction between justice and charity is thought to be fundamental in ethical theory. Yet remarkably little has been done to develop the distinction systematically or to articulate the role it is to play in ethical theory. Four theses about the difference between justice and charity are widely held and rarely argued for: (1) Duties ofjustice (with the exception of those which correspond to special rights generated by promising or special relationships or reciprocal group undertakings that generate obligations of fair play) are exclusively negative duties (duties to refrain from certain actions); duties of charity are generally positive duties (duties to render aid). (2) Duties of justice may be enforced; duties of charity may not. (3) Duties of justice are perfect duties; duties of charity are imperfect. (Perfect duties are determinate both with regard to the content of what is required and with regard to the identity of the individual who is the object of the duty; duties of charity are indeterminate in both senses: the kind and amount of aid, as well as the choice of a recipient are left to the discretion of the benefactor.) (4) Justice is a matter of rights; charity is not (duties of justice have correlative rights; duties of charity do not), and what is one's right is owed to one, the lack of which gives one justified grounds for complaint that one has been wronged. It is far from clear how claims 1-4 are supposed to be related to one another. Although all four purport to characterize differences between justice and charity, we shall see that not all are equally plausible candidates for answering the question, What makes something a duty of charity rather than a duty of justice, and vice versa? Moreover, it will become clear that some of these claims are thought to be derivable from the others, although the connecting assumptions are often either not made explicit or not argued for. By analyzing theses 1-4 and by articulating and assessing the grounds for asserting them, I shall explore the distinction between justice and

Is Politics a Profession? A New School Says Yes

American Political Science Review, 55: 19-28. Trudel, F. and M. Trudel. 1984. Developmental Changes in the Nature and Function of Social Dominance among Young Children. Ethology and Sociobiology, 5: 279-95. Sullivan, Denis G., Roger D. Masters, John T. Lanzetta, Basil G. Englis, and Gregory J. McHugo. 1984. The Effect of President Reagan's Facial Displays on Observers' Attitudes, Impressions and Feelings about Him. Presented at annual meeting of American Political Science Association, Washington, DC. Sullivan, Denis G. and Roger D. Masters. 1987. Emotional and Cognitive Reactions to Watching Political Leaders: Experimental Evidence in France and the United States. Presented to 10th meeting of International Society of Political Psychology, San Francisco, CA. Sullivan, Denis G. and Roger D. Masters. Forthcoming. Happy Warriors: Leaders' Facial Displays, Viewers' Emotions, and Political Support. American Journal of Political Science.

Democracy and Social Choice

The problem ofjustifying democracy arises when a society sees the need for cooperative, collective action. Collective action may be needed to solve coordination problems, public goods problems, Prisoner's Dilemmas, and other structural problems of human interaction or perhaps to realize common ideals of justice in concrete political institutions. Once the need for collective action is established, one must ask how the goals of a cooperative endeavor are to be secured. Cooperation requires that individuals, at least over a specified range of activity, pursue a joint strategy. To assure voluntary compliance in a joint venture, cooperation must be to each person's advantage. However, each person may have an incentive to induce others to cooperate and to defect from the joint strategy in the hope of enjoying the fruits of cooperation without incurring the opportunity costs of compliance. This is the essence of the Prisoner's Dilemma, and considerations of this sort suggest that if collective action is to succeed, policies or strategies formed collectively must be coercively enforceable. Coercion, however, requires justification. Because solving the problem of rational noncompliance requires that collective decisions be coercively enforceable, the rules by which collective decisions are reached require justification. Douglas Rae neatly puts the problem of justification that emerges when political solutions are coercively enforceable as follows: "Once a political community has decided which of its members are to participate directly in the making of collective policy, an important question remains: 'How many of them must agree before a policy is imposed on the community?"" This is essentially the question to which the principle of democratic rule provides an answer: by what process are collective decisions to be made? Answering Rae's question requires a normative framework. We could say that a procedure for making collective decisions is justified if and

Introducing American Government Students to Data Analysis

“The more things change, the more they remain the same.” Although this adage may apply to many aspects of politics, it certainly does not apply to the methodology used in studying this field. As a midcareer student returning to complete a Ph.D., two incidents brought the changes that have occurred in methodology to my immediate attention. First, I was not able to find one of my old research sources in the periodical section of the library. I soon discovered that the Midwest Journal of Political Science is now the American Journal of Political Science. Once I found the journal, I discovered that I could not understand at least one half of the articles in it. Fortunately, I was in a graduate program that required statistics courses and computerized data analysis for all students. After one statistics course and mastering the use of statistical packages for computers, a new approach to the study of politics became available to me.

American journal of Political Science: John R. Hibbing and Sara L. Brandes, ‘State Population and the Electoral Success of U.S. Senators’, 27:4, November 1983, pp. 808–19

American journal of Political Science: John R. Hibbing and Sara L. Brandes, ‘State Population and the Electoral Success of U.S. Senators’, 27:4, November 1983, pp. 808–19

American journal of Political Science: Gregory B. Markus, ‘Dynamic Modeling of Cohort Change: The Case of Political Partisanship’, 27:4, November 1983, pp. 717–39

American journal of Political Science: Gregory B. Markus, ‘Dynamic Modeling of Cohort Change: The Case of Political Partisanship’, 27:4, November 1983, pp. 717–39

American journal of Political Science: Michael S. Lewis-Beck and Tom W. Rice, ‘Localism in Presidential Elections: The Home State Advantage’, 27:3, August 1983, pp. 548–56

The target article by John Jost (2017 – this issue) focuses on political ideology (liberalism vs. conservatism) and its association with personal characteristics, cognitive processing style, and motivational interests. Jost's arguments and data are very compelling and will inspire consumer psychologists to do more research in the political domain. To enable this goal further, we complement the target article by focusing on partisanship, another major determinant of political judgments and decisions. Whereas political ideology refers to people being more liberal or conservative, partisanship refers to how strongly people identify with a specific political party (e.g., Republicans or Democrats). In reviewing the literature on partisanship, we concentrate on voting behaviors and attitudes, an area not addressed by Jost, but of great importance for consumer psychologists given the large expenditures on political advertising. Adding to Jost's discussion of the link between political ideology and systematic processing, we examine the interplay between these two constructs and partisanship.

American journal of Political Science: Helmut Norpoth and Thom Yantek, ‘Macroeconomic Conditions and Fluctuations of Presidential Popularity: The Question of Lagged Effects’, 27:4, November 1983, pp. 785–807

American journal of Political Science: Helmut Norpoth and Thom Yantek, ‘Macroeconomic Conditions and Fluctuations of Presidential Popularity: The Question of Lagged Effects’, 27:4, November 1983, pp. 785–807

American journal of Political Science: John E. Jackson, ‘Election Night Reporting and Voter Turnout’, 27:4, November 1983, pp. 615–35

American journal of Political Science: John E. Jackson, ‘Election Night Reporting and Voter Turnout’, 27:4, November 1983, pp. 615–35

American journal of Political Science: James M. Enelow and Melvin J. Hinich, ‘Voter Expectations in Multi-Stage Voting Systems: An Equilibrium Result’, 27:4, November 1983, pp. 820–7

American journal of Political Science: James M. Enelow and Melvin J. Hinich, ‘Voter Expectations in Multi-Stage Voting Systems: An Equilibrium Result’, 27:4, November 1983, pp. 820–7

American journal of political science: William Claggett, Jeffrey Loesch, W. Phillips Shively and Ronald Snell, ‘Political Leadership and the Development of Political Cleavages: Imperial Germany, 1871–1912’, 26:4, November 1982, pp. 643–663

American journal of political science: William Claggett, Jeffrey Loesch, W. Phillips Shively and Ronald Snell, ‘Political Leadership and the Development of Political Cleavages: Imperial Germany, 1871–1912’, 26:4, November 1982, pp. 643–663

American journal of political science: J. David Gopoian, ‘Issue preferences and candidate choice in presidential primaries’ 26:3, August 1982, pp. 523–46

American journal of political science: J. David Gopoian, ‘Issue preferences and candidate choice in presidential primaries’ 26:3, August 1982, pp. 523–46

American journal of political science: Douglas A. Hibbs, Jnr. with the assistance of R. Douglas Rivers and Nicholas Vasilatos, ‘The Dynamics of political support for american presidents among occupational and partisan groups’, 26:2, May 1982, pp. 312–32

American journal of political science: Douglas A. Hibbs, Jnr. with the assistance of R. Douglas Rivers and Nicholas Vasilatos, ‘The Dynamics of political support for american presidents among occupational and partisan groups’, 26:2, May 1982, pp. 312–32

American journal of political science: J. Theodore Anagnoson, ‘Federal Grant Agencies and Congressional Election campaigns’, 26:3, August 1982, pp. 547–61

American journal of political science: J. Theodore Anagnoson, ‘Federal Grant Agencies and Congressional Election campaigns’, 26:3, August 1982, pp. 547–61